Tottenham Hotspur and Leyton Orient will consider legal challenges to West
Ham’s selection as preferred bidder for the Olympic Stadium, which will be
ratified at an Olympic Park Legacy Company board meeting on Friday.

Grounds for optimism: David Sullivan and David Gold have taken a clear lead in the race to win the right to take over the Olympic Stadium Photo: GETTY IMAGES

Telegraph Sport disclosed on Wednesday night that OPLC chair Baroness Margaret Ford and chief executive Andrew Altman had concluded that West Ham's was the only bid that satisfied all five criteria laid down by the Government.

With Tottenham understood to have met only three of the criteria, Ford and Altman’s findings will be put to a full board meeting starting at 8am. An announcement, expected to confirm West Ham’s selection as preferred bidder, is expected by 11am.

The decision will have to be endorsed by London Mayor Boris Johnson and Government ministers Jeremy Hunt, the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, and Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, but sources suggest that could follow within days.

Political support for West Ham’s commitment to retain the running track, which satisfies London’s ‘Singapore promise’ of an athletics legacy, is strong and is understood to have played a key part in the success.

The process could yet face judicial review by Tottenham and Leyton Orient, though Spurs are waiting until they have seen the full reasoning behind the decision.

The revelation of the OPLC’s preference for West Ham prompted a furious reaction at White Hart Lane. Club sources suggested that the process may have been subject to political interference. One source claimed the club were the victims of a “sucker punch”, being invited into the bid to help drive a better deal out of West Ham and then discarded without a fair hearing.

There is particular anger at Tottenham at the suggestion that the bid has not met two of the OPLC’s five criteria. It is understood the OPLC has determined that Spurs did not meet the requirement to get the stadium open quickly after the Olympics, or the need to allow flexible usage of the stadium “accommodating a vibrant programme of events that allows year-round access for schools, the local community, the wider public and elite sport”. Tottenham claim that they have not been notified of shortcomings in the flexibility of the stadium offer, and that they attempted to meet the OPLC’s concerns over timing.

The OPLC wants the main stadium open as soon as possible so that it can begin attracting other investment into the park.

Spurs originally said their purpose-built football stadium, which would not have a running track, would be open for the 2015-16 season. With West Ham proposing to be ready a year earlier, Tottenham amended their bid to have 40,000 seats ready by 2014-15 and the full 60,000 by the following season.

The flexibility issue is harder for Tottenham to challenge given their insistence that they would not countenance retaining the running track. They are furious to have been penalised for that, believing that they had political approval from the Government and mayors’ office for their plan to refurbish Crystal Palace as an alternative athletics legacy.

The finances of Tottenham’s bid are also thought to have counted against them. Their construction costs were more than double West Ham’s £95million, and there is some disquiet at the ultimate funding guarantees lying offshore in Joe Lewis’s Tavistock Group empire.

Ultimately Tottenham appear to have paid the price for the strong commitment of figures including London 2012 chairman Lord Coe to the bid fulfilling its commitments.

Coe’s angry intervention three weeks ago helped shift the debate in West Ham’s favour, and ministers are conscious of the public outcry that would greet a decision to demolish the Olympic Stadium within weeks of the Games ending.

Key Games initiatives, including ticket sales, are due to begin in the next few weeks and there is a desire to ensure they are not overshadowed by further controversy over the venue.

Barry Hearn, the Leyton Orient chairman, said he would also consider legal action because of the impact West Ham’s arrival in Stratford would have on his club. “If the OPLC decision goes with West Ham tomorrow, we at Leyton Orient still feel we have a case against the Premier League for compensation and certainly our lawyers say there is a case for a judicial review.”

Tottenham said: “Whilst we are concerned to read that there appears to have been a leak of information from the OPLC about what their recommendation and decision may be, we regard it as premature to make any comment at this stage.”

Former club owner Lord Sugar also criticised the selection. “If they do make a decision in West Ham’s direction it will be a weak and cowardly decision,” he said. “It is not a proper venue for football and athletics together. It is a flawed idea.”

What lies in store for the Hammers’ new home

Monday Feb 14: Negotiations between preferred bidder and OPLC begin

March 31: Target date for agreement of lease

April–May: Commence technical design work for the legacy solution and preparation of planning application

June: Complete stadium construction for 2012 Games mode

July 2011-June 2012: Stadium test events and maintenance period

July 2011–September 2012: London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games period

October 2012: Commence removal of temporary 2012 Games overlay

November 2012: Commence transformation of stadium to legacy mode

December 2012: Deadline for advising planning authority of venue and public-realm management arrangements

April 2014: Complete-transformation works

August 2014: Stadium due to be open for the start of the 2014-15 football season